<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Automation of Building the Safety Models of Complex Technical Systems for Critical Application</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Bohdan Volochiy</string-name>
          <email>bvolochiy@ukr.net</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Bohdan Mandziy</string-name>
          <email>bmandziy@lp.edu.ua</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Leonid Ozirkovskyy</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="editor">
          <string-name>Key Terms. Reliability, MathematicalModel, MathematicalModeling</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Theoretical Radio Engineering and Radio Measurement, Lviv Polytechnic National University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>12 Bandera str., 79013 Lviv</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UA">Ukraine</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>In this paper the improvement of method of automated building of state space models of complex technical systems for critical application was proposed. On the basis of the developed model with the split state of critical failure the reliability and safety indexes of studied system can be obtained. Developed approach allows to estimate of reliability and safety indexes, that makes the impact of maintenance strategies on safety and reliability, impact of the fault tolerance on safety to be considered. This will increase the accuracy (certainty) of efficiency indexes estimation of complex technical systems for critical application.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd />
        <kwd>Reliability</kwd>
        <kwd>Reliability Engineering</kwd>
        <kwd>Safety</kwd>
        <kwd>Modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>Complex System</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Modern technical systems belong to the class of complex systems, which have the
following properties [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1,2</xref>
        ]:
 presence of large number of elements which interact according to the given
fuctional algorithm, that causes the great dimention of reliability mathematical
model (from tens to hundreds of thousands of differential equations);
 elements of the system can be characterized by several types of failures (such
as breakage and short circuit);
 in the case of multifunctional systems the situations when not all functions are
fully performed or are performed simultaneously or are performed with the
deterioration of relevant characteristics can happen. Therefore the definition
of "system failure" is complicated;
 the failure of complex system for critical application can affect the human
casualties or material damage, so these systems must be fault-tolerant (the
ability to function normally in conditions of failures of individual elements)
and safety (resistance to accidents). These properties are achieved by
introduction of various kinds of redundancy (structural, algorithmic, time,
etc.), that leads to complexity of structure and internal behavior algorithm of
the system as a result of the introduction of control functions, fault isolation
and function recovery.
      </p>
      <p>Thus, the designers of complex technical systems for critical application (CTSCA)
must provide the high level of reliability and safety of the project, and thus they meet a
number of contradictions, namely: contradiction between the complexity of the system
and its reliability (more complex system has lower reliability), the contradiction
between reliability and safety (to increase the level of safety it is necessary to induce
additional subsystem of security, locking, emergency stop, etc., that reduces reliability).
Increasing of reliability through the use of fault-tolerant configuration does not increase
the level of safety. At the same time the applying of appropriate maintenance strategy
increases both reliability and safety. At the design stage, these contradictions are solved
by multivariate mathematical modeling of CTSCA, comparative analysis of
alternatives and selection of the best one. Note that the system reliability analysis
involves the study of the process of transition from state to state in the state space as a
result of failure or restoration of certain elements of the system. In the general approach
for forming reliability models these models are formalized and describe the interaction
of elements of the system while its performing from the reliability position. These
models reflect the degree of each element influence on the reliability in the whole. The
study of safety includes, in addition, the analysis of the transition of system failures due
to accident and determines the characteristics of this process.</p>
      <p>Due to complexity of modern technical systems the multivariate analysis without
automation of model building and estimation of reliability and safety indexes on its
basis are not available in many cases. So often, especially for safety estimation, it is
replaced by building one variant of the model followed by the combination of obtained
results with expert evaluation of safety and recommendations to bring them up to
acceptable values.</p>
      <p>Nowadays reliability behavior modeling of CTSCA and its safety modeling are
carried out independently of each other, using different types of models, which in the
case of reliability take into account some properties of the system, but in the case of
safety – completely different, although in reality these properties are interrelated and
can’t be separated.</p>
      <p>This approach is explained by the reliability models complexity as well as safety
models and respectively by huge time costs for their building and by significant
computational costs for their analysis with taking into account only the important
nuances of CTSCA behavior. The dimension of reliability models of modern systems
can reach hundreds and thousands equations. The safety model is, unlike the reliability
model, complex logical function that contains hundreds and thousands arguments.
Experience shows that the "manual" building of reliability models of fault-tolerant
systems even with small number of elements (10) without software usage requires
timeconsuming procedure of dozen hours. If you change the parameters of the state graph
you need to rebuild the new one and the probability of making errors in the model is
very high when the chances of detection them is very low, also the time of restructuring
the state graph is comparable with the time of construction its first version. Manual
building of safety models as fault tree and the risk indexes estimation on its basis
(minimal cut set) is comparable to the complexity of the building the reliability models
as graph of states and transitions.</p>
      <p>From the above it arises the urgent task of further improvement and development of
automated methods for modeling reliability behavior of CTSCA which are focused on
reliability and safety indexes estimation.
2</p>
      <p>The Current State of Modeling the Reliability and Safety of
Complex Technical Systems Critical Application and</p>
      <p>Directions for Its Improvement</p>
      <p>For reliability estimation of CTSCA nowadays there are enough formal and in some
cases software implemented approaches, but for safety estimation there are only
partially formalized methodologies which involve manual building of logical and
probabilistic models in GUI. These models provide the automated determination of
selected safety indexes - risk indexes (minimal cut sets).</p>
      <p>
        Well-known software suites such as RAM Commander (ALD, Israel) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], PTC
Windchill QualitySolutions (PTC, USA) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ], ReliaSoft Synthesis Master Suite
(ReliaSoft USA) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ], Item Toolkit (Item Software, USA, UK) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], Reliability
Workbench (Isograph, US, UK) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] allow building reliability models as reliability block
diagrams (RBD) with the automated estimation of reliability. Models as graph of states
and transitions are built manually with further automation of reliability analysis.
      </p>
      <p>For safety estimation these software suites have graphical tools for forming fault
trees in manual mode with the automated determination of minimum cut sets and
special tools to carry out FMEA / FMECA analysis. The main advantage of these
software suites is that they contain integrated frameworks of elements models
(electronic, electromechanical, mechanical, etc.) in accordance with international
standards: MIL-HDBK-217, Telcordia SR-332, IEC TR 62380, 217Plus, FIDES, which
are required for reliability and safety analysis.</p>
      <p>
        In monograph [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] the general principles of automation of building reliability models
as matrix of states and transitions and matrix with subsequent transition to the graph of
states and transitions are given as guidelines and recommendations. Also, this approach
does not have tools to analyze safety. In monograph [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] the fundamental principles of
logical and probabilistic models as fault trees for the reliability and safety estimation
are provided. Actually, this approach is widely used to analyze safety indexes, namely,
risk by the minimal cut sets determination. However, this approach isn't formalized and
in the case of CTSCA it requires significant time costs for building the fault tree and
computational costs for the analysis of safety indexes. In addition, any changes in the
structure of the system require the construction of its new model. Therefore, for
multivariate analysis at the design stage this approach is rarely used, it is usually
provided for certification, when the structure of CTSCA is established.
      </p>
      <p>
        Currently the most powerful method for building reliability models of CTSCA is the
state space method. It allows us to adequately reflect the functional and reliability
behavior of CTSCA. Generated by this method model is represented by yhe system of
linear differential equations of Chapman-Kolmogorov which adequately describes all
the features of system behavior that allows us to obtain standardized and
nonstandardized reliability indexes, which are required by developer at design stage.
However, for the analysis of safety and risk, in particular, this mathematical tool is not
used in practice, although there are attempts to use it for building dynamic fault trees
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. Practical use of state space method [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ] is limited at the design stage, due to
cumbersome models, the phase space of which is equal to 103 .. 104 equations, and for
multivariate analysis, in most cases, it is replaced by simplified evaluation using
standard models.
      </p>
      <p>
        In work [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] the method of automated generation of state space for behavior analysis
of CTSCA basing on formalized description of the designed object in the form of
structural-automatic model is described. It allows us to automate the process of
reliability models building and to significantly reduce the time costs of multivariate
analysis.
      </p>
      <p>
        Structural-automatic model (SAM) consists of three sets of data [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. The first set is
state vector (SV), which describes all the formalized list of states using variables - SV
components. The SV components are variables which describe the state of the system
elements. State vector may contain additional components which are used to track the
status of additional features, such as counter of current number of repairs of each item;
counter of all repairs; counter of total number of failed items and so on.
      </p>
      <p>The second set is constants - set of formal parameters which characterize the
structure of the system and its properties, namely the number of parts on the system
configuration, the number of reserve elements, their failure rate and intensity of
renewals, limited number of updates and more.</p>
      <p>The third set is tree of modification rules of state vector components (TMRSVC),
which is given in tabular form and reflects the consequences which come after the
failure or recovery of certain elements under certain conditions. The components of
TMRSVC are the events, which can occur with elements (failure or recovery of
element, reserve connection etc.), the set of logical conditions that defines combinations
of values of state vector components, which take place for this event, and the
modification rules of states vector components (MRSV). Each condition corresponds
to the formula for calculating the intensity transition (FCIT). The event result is the
change of SV component and transition from one state of system to another in
accordance with the rules of transition. If certain elements inherent in more than one
type of failures (such as breakage and short circuit), the probability of which is known,
in such cases, use the set of formulas for calculate the probability of alternative
transitions (FCPAT), for each of which the certain rule from MRSV is used.</p>
      <p>Time-costs for build the SAM by experienced developer are 1-30 hours, depending
on the complexity of the system. These costs justifies itself in multivariate analysis of
fault-tolerant systems, because the next correction of the model, even with significant
changes in the structure of the system takes time from tens of minutes to several hours.</p>
      <p>
        This approach is implemented in ASNA software[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11 ref2">2, 11</xref>
        ]. Input data about the
researched object for software module ASNA should be submitted in the form of SAM,
which is formalized description of the structure and reliability behavior of system (the
rules of transition from one state to another during the failure and recovery of elements).
Basing on SAM software module ASNA generates the list of all possible states of the
system, the table of transitions from one state to another, which is transformed into the
matrix of intensities of transitions when entering numerical values of intensities of
failures and recovery of the system. Therefore, basing on the matrix of intensities
ASNA module automatically forms the system of differential Chapman-Kolmogorov
equations and solves it by Runge-Kutta-Merson method. As a result the user gets the
time dependences of probabilities of system being in each of the possible states. Basing
on this information, the user can define standardized reliability indexes of system
(availability function, probability of failure, failure flow parameter, MTTF, etc.), and
arbitrary parameters that may be needed for the "thin" study of the system (probability
of downtime, probability of having at least N employable elements when using a certain
number of renewals, etc.).
      </p>
      <p>
        This approach focuses on estimation reliability indexes for reliability design and
efficiency indexes for functional design. To use this approach to the safety indexes
estimation the improvement both the graph states and transitions (to display emergency
situations) and description of the state vector and principles of SAM building is needed.
In particular, in work [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] it is proposed to combine the approach outlined in the
monograph [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] with reliability block diagram GUI, allowing us to integrate into SAM
designed method of RBD visualization and determine system operation conditions.
Developed interface allows entering data not only for method of RBD visualization,
but also for reliability model of the whole system. However, this approach has several
limitations considering maintenance strategies and tools for monitoring and
diagnostics. In addition, this approach focuses exclusively on building reliability
models.
      </p>
      <p>Thus, among the known approaches there were not found ones which allow
determining the reliability and safety indexes for the same behavior model of CTSCA
with taking into account all behavior features of the system while disability, accidents,
downtime, etc. Hence the task of updating SAM and state space method for their
adaptation to the problems of multivariate analysis and safety indexes estimation.
3</p>
      <p>Improvement of the State Space Method and Its Formalization
for Safety Models Building</p>
      <p>The state space method combining with formalized description of the systems in the
form of SAM is the powerful tool for the study of both functional and reliability indexes
of CTSCA STSVP that allows us to perform multivariate analysis with minimal
timecost. Significant advantages of the state space method is that it provides the set of all
states of CTSCA and determine the probability rates getting in or staying in any of
them. This property is particularly relevant when the operation of the system allows the
states of reduced functionality or partial disability. In addition, you can see the quantity
of reliability increase when entering certain types of redundancy and their cost. These
properties make it possible not only to investigate the reliability of CTSCA when
carrying in redundancy or changing its behavior algorithm, but also to analyze the
impact of these actions on safety, which we understand as the risk of emergency in case
of failure of each element of system.</p>
      <p>
        This index according to [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13 ref14">13, 14</xref>
        ] is called minimal cut set. Minimal cut set (MCS) –
is a minimal combination of events which lead to catastrophic system failure. If when
any of event is removed from the MCS the remaining events collectively cannot cause
to catastrophic system failure [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Thus, when designing CTSCA we must have a single model that is based on the state
space method and provides:
 adequate reflection of system behavior while disability;
 consideration of strategies for maintenance and repair;
 consideration of controls and diagnostics;
 possibility of obtaining reliability indexes (probability of faultless work ,
availability, MTTF, MTBF);
 possibility of obtaining safety indexes (MCS);
 consideration of system downtime;
 the opportunity to obtain indexes of economic efficiency;
 to carry out the multivariate analysis.</p>
      <p>To achieve this goal it is necessary to make a number of modifications of the state
space method, as described below. The behavior of CTSCA is described by graph of
states and transitions. Vertices of graph are the states in which the system can be. These
states are characterized by probabilities. Edges of the graph are the possible transitions
from state to state and are characterized by the transition intensities.</p>
      <p>In all known methods the catastrophic failure condition is a combination of all
inoperable states, which are united in one state. This is used, on the one hand, to obtain
the required reliability indexes when only operable states are used, on the other hand,
inoperable states significantly increase the phase space, dimensionality of which is
great.</p>
      <p>Therefore, for safety indexes estimation (MCS), you must split the state of
catastrophic failure (CF) in separate states. Thus, the set of inoperable states contains a
subset of accidents (AS1, ..., ASi, ...), accordingly to CTSCA (Fig. 1). Each of these
accidents can be represented by the corresponding fault tree.</p>
      <p>The dimension of the system of differential equations Chapman - Kolmogorov
increases proportionally to the expansion of phase space and the system of equations
consists of two parts - the equations that describe the operable states (Pi (t)) and the
equations that describe inoperable states (Qj (t)).</p>
      <p>The solution of the equation system can be implemented by analytical methods
(matrix exponential, Laplace transform) and numerical methods (Runge-Kutta,
Rosenbrock). As a result of solution the probability distribution of CTSCA being in all
states is obtained.</p>
      <p>The next step is filtration of obtained probability distribution for the separation of
states to operable and inoperable. Filter is in this case the condition of critical failure.
As a result of filtration, we obtain a set of probability of CTSCA being in operable
states {Pi (t)} and the set of probability of CTSCA being in inoperable states {Qj (t)},
where i is the serial number for operable states and j is the serial number for inoperable
states.</p>
      <p>Split state of CF
АS1
АS2
АS3</p>
      <p>From the resulting set of operable states the necessary reliability indexes are formed
and from the set of inoperable states the MCS – combination of inoperable states, when
the critical failure definitely will occur – are obtained.</p>
      <p>As the number of inoperable states is equal to 101..102, for automated MCS
obtaining, an algorithm for finding all combinations of inoperable states, which refer to
critical system failure, should be developed. This means that this element is one of the
most critical parts of the system. In the case of fault-tolerant systems, CTSCA is just
that, the combination of several elements is possible. It is considered that as more
inoperable states are included in MCS so the less vulnerable system is and so the effects
of its failure will not be catastrophic for human life and health and the environment.</p>
      <p>If vulnerable elements, which form inoperable states, which are included in MCS,
are replaced by more reliable or reserved, the risk of accident is reduced in times. Thus,
the MCS are necessary for designer to make reasonable redundancy in a new version
of designed CTSCA. So due to the effect of redundancy input we can quantify the rate
of risk reduction:</p>
      <p>Krr=Cm/Cn,
(1)
where
Cm – MCS before redundancy input;</p>
      <p>Cn – MCS after redundancy input;</p>
      <p>Generalized diagram of technique of estimation of safety and reliability indexes
basing on the graph of states and transitions with the split failure state and using SAM
is shown in Fig. 2. According to it, the automated algorithm for obtaining MCS was
developed. The input data for the algorithm is the set of inoperable states (MCS),
derived from the binary SAM.</p>
      <p>
        The binary SAM is the SAM of the CTSCA, in which all elements of structure are
displayed by individual SV components and can take only of two values: zero and one.
The binary SAM, which, unlike to original SAM [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ], makes a possibility to describe
the structure and behavior of CTS without unification of states of its structure elements.
In addition, the binary SAM allows obtaining split failure state, in which states of
CTSCA subsystems failures can be discerned with the given level of detail
representation.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>CTSCA analysis</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Binary SAM development</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Automated forming of graph of states and transitions with split failure state</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Forming of differential equations of Chapman - Kolmogorov</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Solving the differential equations of Chapman -Kolmogorov</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Obtaining the distribution of probability of CTSCA being in states</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Operable states selection</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Inoperable state selection</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Reliability indexes estimation</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>MCS computation</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>Forming of FT basing on MCS</title>
      <p>Procedure of filtering inoperable states from whole phase space is carried out by the
analysis of the state vector component, comparing them with the critical failure
condition. If the element is operable, the value of its corresponding SV component is
greater than zero. If the element failed and led to accident, the component will be equal
to zero.</p>
      <p>While the algorithm development it is taken into account that:
 at least one MCS is presented in the sysytem;
 cut set of the system is inoperable state, when system falls into catastrophic
failure condition;
 MCS of the system is the state, when the system is in catastrophic failure but
taking off at least one of the elements that are failed in this MCS, the
catastrophic failure of the system can not occur at all.</p>
      <p>Definition of MCS is provided in two stages: stage of MCS obtaining and stage of
estimation their probability values.</p>
      <p>Stage I. For MCS finding the following procedures are used: MCS sorting; MCS
determination.</p>
      <p>At this step it is necessary to sort obtained array of inoperable states of the system
on the feature of the smallest number of events that led to the accident of the system.
Further, basing on sorted array of inoperable states the MCS are defined. As a result of
the proposed procedures the array of MCS is presents as a matrix.</p>
      <p>Stage II. Determination of MCS probability is performed by the following
procedures: determination of MCS from all cut sets; sum of MCS probabilities; forming
of array of MCS and their probability values.</p>
      <p>According to this stage we must create a matrix that consists of four columns – the
first column is a serial number of MCS – N; the second column is SV component and
its value; in the third column the numbers of states, which are attended by the
corresponding MCS, are recorded. So in the fourth column there are recorded obtained
probabilities of MCS as a result of this procedure. Also at this stage procedure of
comparison of the system states is used.</p>
      <p>The procedure for obtaining probability values of MS is the sum of probability
values of being in respective states, whose numbers were found in the previous
procedure, i.e., in the states that are recorded in the third column corresponding to the
MCS matrix. As a result, the fourth column is filled with appropriate MCS probabilities
value.</p>
      <p>An example of the usage of developed method of MCS definition. Fault-tolerant
system consists of five modules A, B, C, D, E. Modules A, B, D are the main operable
configuration that provides performance of system functions and modules C and E are
reserve modules. Modules A and B are reserved by module C. The entire system is
reserved by module E. All modules have the same failure intensity λ = 0,001, and the
observation period is T = 100 h.</p>
      <p>The RBD of the fault-tolerant system is shown in Fig. 3:
А
С</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-13">
      <title>On the basis of developed binary</title>
      <p>SAM of the fault-tolerant system,
which consists of set of formal
parameters (Fig. 4), SV
components and failure condition
(Fig. 5), the tree of modification
rules of state vector (Fig. 6),
which is the input to the software
module ASNA, the graph states
and transitions was obtained in the
automatic mode (Fig. 7).
Fig .5. State vector components and failure condition</p>
      <p>Basing on the obtained graph of states and transitions the software module ASNA
formed mathematical model of the system as a system of Chapmen - Kolmogorov
differential equations. After its solving the probability of being in every possible state
was obtained. Probability of system being in operable state is 0.9894, and the
probability of failure is equal to:</p>
      <p>Qf = 1 - 0,9894 = 0,01061
λA</p>
      <p>ABC</p>
      <p>DE
λE λD
λB
λC
λC
λB
BCDE</p>
      <p>λE
ACD λC
E
λD
λA
λE
λA
ABD
E
λB
ABCE
λA
ABC
D
λE λD
λE
λC
λD
λB
λA
λC
λB</p>
      <p>CDE
λD
λC</p>
      <p>BDE
ADE
λE
λB
λA
λD
λA
ABE λB
λE
ABD
λD
DE
λD</p>
      <p>λE
λA</p>
      <p>BCD λB
ACD
λA
λD
λB</p>
      <p>BCE
ACE
λC
λB
λA
λC
λD
λE
CE</p>
      <p>BE
AE
λC
λB
λA
CD
λC
λE</p>
      <p>E
λE</p>
      <p>SF</p>
      <p>On the basis of the graph of states and transitions according to developed algorithm,
it was determined that after simultaneous failure of modules E and D the system fails
in general. Next, other two combinations which also lead to failure of the whole system
are ACE and BCE. Thus, these three combinations make the MCS. The next stage was
the determining of the values of the probability of each of these combinations.
Substituting logical expression of MCS DE: ((V4 = 0) AND (V5 = 0)) instead of failure
condition the MCS value of probability simultaneous failure of combination of modules
E and D was obtained, which is QDE = 0,009. Similarly, substituting logical expression
of MCS ACE and BCE instead of failure condition we get: QACE = 0,00084; and QBCE
= 0.00084. The calculated MCS is shown in Table. 1.
The developed approach (Fig. 2) allows us to get the MCS in automatic mode without
fault tree construction.</p>
      <p>Expanding the Functionality of the Program ASNA for the</p>
      <p>Safety Analysis of CTSCA</p>
      <p>For building complex models, which are focused on determination of the reliability
and safety indexes it is most advisable to take as a basis the graph of states and
transitions with split state of catastrophic failure and method for its automated
construction using binary SAM. However, the biggest problem for the designer, in this
case, is the construction of the binary SAM because its formation requires from the
developer not only the deep knowledge of the nuances of functionality of designed
CTSCA but also thorough knowledge about techniques of construction the formalized
graph of states and transitions that is the whole direction in complex systems designing.</p>
      <p>
        Therefore, the next urgent task is to automate the construction of binary SAM-based
graphical representation of the system as a RBD. This will speed up the development
of SAM, reduce the time cost in degree and obtain both reliability and safety indexes.
Principles of this automation were laid in works [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12, 15</xref>
        ]. At the same time, we note
that this approach narrows the class of the analyzed systems because it does not allow
us to analyze complex technical systems that are described by queuing systems,
flowcharts, etc. behavior algorithm.
      </p>
      <p>
        According to approach [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] the visualization software for RBD of technical system,
which makes it possible the automatic construction of graphic images of flow diagram
of technical systems and the formation of conditions of their functioning and failure,
was developed. Using the developed software the information about the system is
transmitted as input to the ASNA software for further calculations of reliability indexes
accordingly to the number of elements in the node, the number of renewals and
maintenance crews, time range, intensity of failures and recoveries for each of elements
of analyzed system.
      </p>
      <p>
        In order to extend the functionality of the ASNA software for safety analysis of
CTSCA it is needed to combine binary SAM methodology with the approach [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. It is
necessary to modify the SAM as follows:
 Every element input in the RBD is accompanied by the creation the next set of SV
components, the number of elements corresponds to the number of components:
      </p>
      <p>Item1, Item2, … ,Itemi,… → V11, V21, … , Vi1, …




</p>
      <p>The initial value of each component is equal to one: Vi1=1;
Type of connection of RBD elements (serial, parallel, combined) is given by the
inoperable condition
If the limited number of renewals of system is planned, for each item is added
another SV component – counter of repairs:</p>
      <p>→ V12, V22, … , Vi2, …</p>
      <p>The initial value of each component is equal to zero: Vi2=0
If the number of renewals is unlimited, the additional component isn’t added;
Each RBD element is assigned to line of binary SAM as follows:</p>
      <p>Event Condition FCIT FCPAT MRSV
Failure of module і Vi1=1 λi 1 Vi1=0
If the system is renewable, in addition to each RBD element, another line is
assigned to binary SAM as follows:</p>
      <p>Event Condition FCIT FCPAT MRSV
Repair of module і (Vi1=0) AND µi 1 Vi1=1
(Vi2&lt;RCi) Vi2= Vi2+1
 Parametres of each element (failure rate - λi, the intensity of repair - μi, the number
of repairs - RCi etc.) is transmitted to set of formal parametres;
 Limited values of each RBD element repair, the number of repair crews, repair
priority are transmitted to set of formal parametres;
 Inoperable conditions are transmitted to SAM and serves to filter the
operablebodied and inoperable states.</p>
      <p>Thus all components of SAM can be automatically formed. Generated data can be
represented as a file that is sent to ASNA software module as input data. ASNA
software module enables automated obtaining of the graph of states and transitions with
split failure state. Basing on the graph of states and transitions ASNA software makes
it possible to assess reliability. CutSetDefiner software, basing on the graph of states
and transitions, can generate MCS and basing on MCS through software [16] we can
automatically get the fault tree.
5</p>
      <p>Conclusions
1. Split of critical failure state in graph of states and transitions, in contrast to the
known approaches, allows estimation of reliability and safety indexes, that makes the
impact of maintenance strategies on safety and reliability, impact of the fault
tolerance on safety to be considered. This will increase the accuracy (certainty) of
efficiency indexes estimation of complex technical systems for critical application.
2. Minimal cut sets obtaining on the basis of the graph of states and transitions allows
taking into account the interrelations of accidents directly from the analysis of system
states for identification weaknesses. It gives only reasonable means for providing
fault tolerance that reasonably reduces the cost of improving the system.
3. Using binary structural-automatic model allows automated obtaining of split critical
failure state and reducing time costs for building the graph of states and transitions.
4. Risk reduction factor was introduced for quantitatively assess of the efficiency of
improving safety by improving reliability by introducing redundancy in critical
elements of complex technical systems for critical application.
5. Fault tree building from the graph of states and transitions basing on minimal cut
sets takes into account the behavior of complex system that is not available when
using static and dynamic fault trees
6. The combination of binary structural-automatic model and method of automated
constructing of graph of states and transitions basing on reliability block diagram
makes it possible to automate the procedure of building structural-automatic model
of fault-tolerant renewable complex technical systems for critical application and
reduce time costs by more than degree.
15. Mandziy B. A., Ozirkovskyi L.D.: Automation Of Building Reliability Models Of Redundant
Restorable Complex Technical Systems. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technology,
№ 4 (62), 2, 44-49 (2013) (in Ukrainian)
16. Volochiу B.Yu., Ozirkovskyi L.D., Mashchak A.V., Shkiliuk O.P.: Fault Tree Build
Automation for Safety Estimation of Complex Technical System. In: Proc. of ІV International
conference “Physical and Technological Problems of Wireless Devices, Telecommunications,
Nano-and Microelectronics PREDT-2014”, pp. 102-103 (2014) (in Ukrainian)</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Polovko</surname>
            <given-names>A.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gurov</surname>
            <given-names>S.V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Basics of reliability theory</article-title>
          . BHV Peterburg Publ., Saint
          <string-name>
            <surname>Petersburg</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
          <article-title>(in Russian)</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            . Bobalo,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Volochiy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lozynskyy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mandziy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ozirkovskyy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fedasyuk</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shcherbovskykh</surname>
          </string-name>
          , V.
          <source>Yakovyna: Mathematical Models and Methods of Analysis of Radioelectronic, Electromechanic and Software Systems</source>
          . Lviv Polytechnic National University Publ.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lviv</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          )
          <article-title>(in Ukrainian)</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>RAMS</surname>
          </string-name>
          (Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety) Software, http://aldservice.com/en/reliability-products/rams-software.html
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>PTC</given-names>
            <surname>Windchill</surname>
          </string-name>
          , http://ru.ptc.com/product/windchill/quality
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>ReliaSoft</given-names>
            <surname>Synthesis Master Suite</surname>
          </string-name>
          , http://www.reliasoft.com/products.htm
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>6. Reliability Engineering Software. Products, http://www.itemsoft.com/products.html</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Reliability</given-names>
            <surname>Workbench</surname>
          </string-name>
          , http://www.isograph.com/software/reliability-workbench/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Henley</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Ernest J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Hiromitsu Kumamoto:
          <article-title>Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Reliability Engineering, Design and Analysis</article-title>
          . Wiley-IEEE Press,
          <volume>2</volume>
          <fpage>edition</fpage>
          , (
          <year>2000</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Ajit</given-names>
            <surname>Kumar</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Verma</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Srividya Ajit, Durga Rao Karanki, Ajit Kumar Verma, Srividya Ajit,
          <source>Durga Rao Karanki: Reliability and Safety Engineering</source>
          . Springer Science &amp; Business
          <string-name>
            <surname>Media</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10. Alessandro Birolini Reliability Engineering: Theory and Practice,
          <source>Sixth Edition</source>
          . Springer (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bohdan</surname>
            <given-names>Volochiy</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Bohdan Mandziy, Leonid Ozirkovskyi:
          <article-title>Extending the features of software for reliability analysis of fault-tolerant systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computational Problems of Electrical Engineering</source>
          ,
          <volume>2</volume>
          ,
          <issue>2</issue>
          ,
          <fpage>113</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>121</lpage>
          (
          <year>2012</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mandziy</surname>
            <given-names>Bogdan</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Seniv Maksym, Mosondz Natalia, Sambir Andriy:
          <article-title>Programming Visualization System of Block Diagram Reliability for Program Complex АSNА-4</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proc. of 13-th International Conference “The Experience Of Designing And Application Of Cad Systems In Microelectronics CADSM-</source>
          <year>2015</year>
          ”, Lviv-Slavsko (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
          <article-title>(in Ukrainian)</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guangbin</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Yang: Life Cycle Reliability Engineering Hoboken</article-title>
          . Wiley,
          <string-name>
            <surname>N.J.</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14. T. Zentis, R. Schmitt:
          <article-title>Technical Risk Management for an Ensured and Efficient Product Development on the Example of Medical Equipment</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 23rd CIRP Design Conference ”Smart Product Engineering”, March 11th - 13th</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>387</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>398</lpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bochum</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>